Abstract

Lovering and colleagues attempt to advance understanding of construction cost escalation risks inherent in building nuclear reactors and power plants, a laudable goal. Although we appreciate their focus on capital cost increases and overruns, we maintain in this critical appraisal that their study conceptualizes cost issues in a limiting way. Methodological choices in treating different cost categories by the authors mean that their conclusions are more narrowly applicable than they describe. We also argue that their study is factually incorrect in its criticism of the previous peer-reviewed literature. Earlier work, for instance, has compared historical construction costs for nuclear reactors with other energy sources, in many countries, and extending over several decades. Lastly, in failing to be transparent about the limitations of their own work, Lovering et al. have recourse to a selective choice of data, unbalanced analysis, and biased interpretation.